Flann 5 wrote:Hi Interbane,
I feel I'm having to repeat myself a lot and it just gets a bit wearying. As an historian Carrier accepts Josephus on James. I'm just taking Carrier on his own premises. He also acknowledges that these novels are entirely fictional.
I don't mean to be disrespectful and appreciate your taking the trouble to respond. It is never ending it seems, so I have to end somewhere.

I've noticed that the commonality between atheists like Interbane and Tulip is that they seem to be on an imaginary crusade.

Tulip, in his Da Vinci thread, stated the following (emphasis mine)

Christians tend towards bigotry, and I am working to overthrow their whole supernatural paradigm for understanding reality by revealing the hidden purpose of their myths. By and large I find that Christians are too emotional about these topics to enable a sensible conversation.

And It's well established that Interbane's "vested interest in the future" (he knows what I'm talking about here) motivates him to correct theism's delusional worldview (he has explicitly stated here on booktalk that I am delusional) every chance he gets.


If religion is nothing more than an evolutionary meme, there is no questioning its importance to the survival of the species.
Oh sure, it has lots of faults that are tied directly to politics and power, but history tell us it has been more valuable to our survival than "rational godlessness"
To think that religion can be stamped out by declaring some sort of generalized pseudo intellectual war on theism is to suffer from delusions of grandeur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in comparison to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD

Oddly, there is a religious theme to this psychosis, despite the host claiming not to have any religious delusions to speak of.

I think your inductive reasoning is just that - inductive.

I think your checks and balances for your inferences are based on induction as well.

I think your justification is based on circular reasoning, induction justifying induction.


I think your still a mess but just don't realize it.

Yes, pretty much all reasoning has induction as a foundation, and inductive reasoning cannot justify itself. This is not my problem alone, but a problem for everyone. Which means we must accept inductive reasoning as axiomatic, at the same time we give a nod towards the provisional nature of it's conclusions.

Building on that foundation, the only way to move forward is using proper method, to minimize the influence of our emotions and biases.

And It's well established that Interbane's "vested interest in the future" (he knows what I'm talking about here) motivates him to correct theism's delusional worldview (he has explicitly stated here on booktalk that I am delusional) every chance he gets.

We all have our delusions.

My interest in the future is likely the same as yours. I want a world that my children can live in, in peace. I have lived a comfortable life relative to my ancestors, but there is plenty of room for improvement. Many of the issues I've had are traced to religion. I don't expect you to believe me, and I don't care.

To think that religion can be stamped out by declaring some sort of generalized pseudo intellectual war on theism is to suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Is that so? The four horsemen have had no impact? If I've changed any minds, it's been to polarize them against me. People don't change their minds. But those who cross these forums and are straddling the fence can be persuaded. I have a pragmatic understanding of my influence.

He also acknowledges that these novels are entirely fictional.

Hagiographies are not entirely fictional, and he admits that many things written in the gospels are real and true.

As an historian Carrier accepts Josephus on James.

Yes, James as the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

You're simply missing my points Flann, and declaring yourself correct. You really haven't shown Carrier to be wrong, even if he might be.

You are right Interbane, Carrier says it was a James the brother of the high priest so I mistakenly misrepresented his position there. I owe him an apology for that and should have checked more carefully. Other historians disagree with him on this but Carrier's view is as you say on this point.
I don't think this makes his thesis tenable and I've pretty much said what I have to say on that.

http://www.scienceandotherdrugs.wordpre ... re-review/

It was actually in Carrier's take on Paul's writings about James and Jesus that he gets this wrong. See the linked review of Carrier's
Why Jesus never existed, talk. This is to clarify this issue.

It was actually in Carrier's take on Paul's writings about James and Jesus that he gets this wrong. See the linked review of Carrier's

I know I'm being a pain in the butt, and I'm sorry. But my experience has been that both sides only dig deep enough to satisfy their convictions, then go no further. You've scoured the internet for people who debate against Carrier, then called it a day. Did you also read Carrier's reply to them? Many of their failed arguments rest on the points that I also missed, until I read Carrier's reply.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4573

Interbane wrote:Hagiographies are not entirely fictional, and he admits that many things written in the gospels are real and true.

Carrier says that Acts is of the genre of historical religious fiction novels of the time. You can't use the gospels and Acts as your examples. Carrier is saying these are like other fictional religious novels of the time. Name one such fictional novel from that time where the hero is a real person. You can't. Even Carrier says they were entirely fictional.
Carrier doesn't answer the criticisms of the science and drugs blogger. His translating and interpreting of new testament greek is poor as Dan Wallace who teaches new testament greek pointed out.
William Lane Craig exposed his poor understanding and interpretation of the language in his debate with him on the key point of "changed" or "exchanged" in a crucial passage on the resurrection.Indeed at times it's farcical.
Much in his responses in his blog hinge on translation of greek words which also must be taken in context.This is not his forte.
Carrier who borrows heavily from Earl Doherty, attempts to argue that Christ was not a human being born on earth but an hallucinated being who Paul believed was "manufactured" with some kind of quasi human body. It is important for him then to try show that when Paul says Christ was "of the seed of David according to the flesh" this does not mean what it would ordinarily be taken to mean.
When Paul says Christ was" born of a woman" he tries to argue this is allegorical language.
Paul says of his countrymen "who are Israelites.......... of whom are the fathers and from whom.Christ according to the flesh came," Romans 9;5 So Christ is a Jew physically descended just like his countrymen.
And in Hebrews "For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah,of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood" Hebrews 7;14. So Christ is a descendant of Judah.
Furthermore Paul uses the same language of himself as when speaking of Christ as of the seed of David. "For I also am an Israelite,of the seed of Abraham,of the tribe of Benjamin" Romans 11;1.
I'm just addressing one specific point here, Christ being of the seed of David meaning biological descent. but his allegorical interpretation of "born of a woman" is equally poor.

Only someone with an agenda could misinterpret the new testament as badly as he does. It is clear to all but the blind that Paul and Hebrews teach that Christ was a real human being and not a manufactured being roaming around in some "sub lunar" region of space.

Flann 5 wrote:Only someone with an agenda could misinterpret the new testament as badly as he does. It is clear to all but the blind that Paul and Hebrews teach that Christ was a real human being and not a manufactured being in outer space.

Hi Flann, I have my quibbles with Carrier as well. But it continues to amaze me that instead of engaging with the ideas in this book, you continue to harp on things that aren't even in the book. I have delved into ancient history just enough to know that the Jesus question cannot be answered definitely. As such, Carrier's (subsequent) ideas about Jesus in outer space can be viewed as theory that we can explore and see where it takes us. It's not really that important in the grand scheme of things.

Except it is to you, isn't it? Your entire worldview is built not only on Jesus as a real human being (something that cannot be confirmed by the scant historical evidence), but Jesus as performer of miracles and son of God (which not only cannot be confirmed by historical evidence, but actually violates the laws of physics). That seems to me a pretty heavy burden, my friend. Your entire worldview, in all likelihood, rests on a cultural construction—a fantasy. It's no wonder you are so worked up.

Perhaps it's time to revisit some of Carrier's first lines in this book.

You either have a coherent, sensible, complete philosophy that is well-supported by all the evidence that humans have yet mustered, or you do not. Yet most people cannot even tell you which of those two camps their religion, their philosophy, is in. Hardly anyone has spent a single serious moment exploring their philosophy of life. Far fewer have made any significant effort to get it right. Instead, “Religion” has become a factory-made commodity, sold off the shelf to the masses, who assume it must be good if it is really old and lots of smarter and better educated people say it’s a good buy (“8 out of 10 experts recommend Christian Brand Salvation!”). People think they can just plug such a goodie into their lives, maybe with a few unskilled adjustments of their own, and never have to think about whether it is well-constructed, well-thought-out, or even true. Some people, more creative but no wiser, take a shallow glance around and tear pieces from existing products, or grab whatever pops into their heads, and throw together something of their own, with little in the way of careful investigation or analysis. It would require more than the Luck of the Irish for either approach to succeed. It is the rare bird (and the humble one, who never claims to know more than they do) who can hit upon wisdom without taking more serious care.

Something to think about at least.

Hi Geo,
You are right of course that his Sense and Goodness book is not about his mythicism or the historicity of Jesus. That genie though, rightly or wrongly, is already out of the bottle and I've mainly been responding to Interbane on this.
He felt I wasn't dealing with Carrier's responses and I think that's a fair point,so that's why I specifically addressed Carrier's interpretation of Paul in my last post.
It's not that I was worked up, but that I felt I was having to repeat myself.I wasn't taking into account Interbane's view of Carrier's responses, so that's why I was more specific in my last post here.
The worldview argument Geo, is a double edged sword. When you talk about violating the laws of physics you are assuming a closed universe and the non existence of God. Lennox addresses these things in his talk on ;Is belief in the supernatural irrational?
Carrier fails his own critique when it comes to his mythicist thesis and his very poor exegesis of the new testament.

[quote Carrier; "Some people, more creative but no wiser, take a shallow glance around and tear pieces from existing products, or grab whatever pops into their heads, and throw together something of their own, with little in the way of careful investigation or analysis."
I think that's a pretty good description of his "sub-lunar" Jesus and hallucinations thesis. More careful investigation and analysis of the new testament might help,if it's not too much to ask of a scholar.

Flann wrote:Carrier says that Acts is of the genre of historical religious fiction novels of the time. You can't use the gospels and Acts as your examples. Carrier is saying these are like other fictional religious novels of the time. Name one such fictional novel from that time where the hero is a real person. You can't. Even Carrier says they were entirely fictional.

That has nothing to do with Carrier's point. A hagiography can have a real or fictional person that it embellishes. It's simply not relevant. Besides, isn't Carrier's position that Jesus never existed? If so, what is your point?

Carrier doesn't answer the criticisms of the science and drugs blogger. His translating and interpreting of new testament greek is poor as Dan Wallace who teaches new testament greek pointed out.

I saw two responses to the science and drugs blogger in the link I provided, and I didn't read the entire thing. Regarding translation issues, Carrier himself says that Dan Wallace's criticisms of his interpretations were accurate, but none of them made any difference to his argument.

http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com/Catalogue+-+WXYZ

William Lane Craig exposed his poor understanding and interpretation of the language in his debate with him on the key point of "changed" or "exchanged" in a crucial passage on the resurrection.Indeed at times it's farcical.

What was the interpretation a key point for? Which argument?

I'm pretty sure I've given enough disclaimer in previous posts, but I'll do it again. I don't know if Carrier is right about all this. I've been anal about the details in the last few posts because you're claiming he's making fallacious claims and his position can be rejected due to it's preposterous nature. It's more clear now than it was before that you're wrong about these two things. You haven't shown anything close to a logical fallacy coming from Carrier, and his position, if apparently preposterous to you, has no reason to be dismissed.

Is Carrier's conclusion that Jesus was a mythical figure wrong because he misinterpreted the greek word for change? Absolutely not. Even if you've shown Carrier to make ten thousand mistakes, you must also ensure those mistakes are critical premises in the arguments he's making, else you cannot dismiss the argument. This is how logic works. Perhaps the point above with the translation of the word "change" is a valid point and deals with a critical premise. If so, what argument does the premise apply to? If it is a critical premise to the arguments that got this ball rolling(AstroJesus and hagriography), then I think we've finally landed on something solid. To be honest, I'm too tired with this topic to find what you're referring to and look at the context. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Carrier's entire premise rests on the interpretation of changed or exchanged, he's definitively wrong, and therefore his entire argument fails.

I've read more about the mythicist position in the last few days than I have my entire life before. Thanks for that. I'm still not sold by either side, and the debate will continue on into the future.

Interbane wrote: That has nothing to do with Carrier's point. A hagiography can have a real or fictional person that it embellishes. It's simply not relevant. Besides, isn't Carrier's position that Jesus never existed? If so, what is your point?

I think I've made this point very clearly. Carrier says that Acts is historical fiction as found in a genre of religious fictional novels of the time. These novels are entirely fictional as Carrier admits but Acts recounts a real person Paul traveling and founding real churches.
I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of one such religious fictional novel of the time that relates the adventures of a real person,if it is the same genre.
You must remember that most of Carrier's thesis is based on what he thinks Paul is saying in his letters.So he thinks Paul is saying that Jesus wasn't a real human being born on earth to a real mother, but a "manufactured" quasi human being roaming in sub lunar regions.In a recent post on Christ as an descendant of Israel and Judah I've shown that Carrier misinterprets Paul who says Jesus was of the seed of David.
He maintains it was the belief of Paul that Jesus left his original "body" and was resurrected with a new different one and he interprets Paul to say the same thing about the resurrection of believers. This is poor exegesis and interpretation,a recurring failing with Carrier. About 18 minutes into his talk Lane Craig addresses this and at 1hour 20minutes in looks at more of his exegetical handiwork.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd6qzFYzX8
If Paul taught that Jesus was a real human being,a Jew descended from Israel,Judah and David then Carrier's thesis collapses in trying to explain Christianity as an hallucination by Paul and others of a non human being inhabiting and being crucified not on earth but in sub lunar regions.But if they taught that Christ was a real person crucified on earth under Pilate then Carrier's thesis fails.
As far as proving the historicity or otherwise of Jesus, that is a separate question.If Carrier's standards of scholarship in interpreting scripture is anything to go by I wouldn't be rushing to accept his opinions on historical matters either, but that would have to be looked at separately.
On the hallucinations theory; here's a quick comment by N.T.Wright. Of course the empty tomb still has to be explained separately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOJc_LzAgXw

Flann wrote:I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of one such religious fictional novel of the time that relates the adventures of a real person,if it is the same genre.

This hasn't been all that clear to me. You're staying stuff, and I'm trying to follow the logical structure behind your words, but not having any luck. It would help tremendously if you'd provide the exact words Carrier uses. Here is where I'm confused:

A) If Carrier says that hagiographies are "entirely fictional", then they necessarily don't contain any real names nor places nor events, whatsoever. The story is not on Earth. What is fictional? Not the novels in their entirety, as you're saying. The main characters? The events? Both? Your words aren't precise, and they're confusing me.

B) Whether or not the main character is based on a real person is another point of confusion. Are you saying that this is one of the necessary criteria that establishes whether or not a story is a hagiography? From everything I've seen, this is not a criteria. Hagiographies are based on both real and false characters. This is true regardless of whether or not the prevalent hagiographies of the time had only one or the other.

Flann wrote:But if they taught that Christ was a real person crucified on earth under Pilate then Carrier's thesis fails.

Then it is obvious at face value that Carrier's thesis fails. Isn't that correct? A high schooler could see the truth here without any research. So why did a historian with a doctorate spend hundreds of hours, only for his thesis to fail on such a basic and obvious point? There's something amiss here, Flann. It's why I haven't yet let this go.

But I see that the only solution is to watch the youtube video. I truly don't have time for that. I guess I'll have to trust your interpretation of his thesis.